Posted on 07/06/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Robert Reich’s Religion Problem
Witless rhetorical oppositions.
Liberals tend to take umbrage when it is suggested that they are hostile to religion, or to religious people, or to some subset thereof. They have nothing against evangelical Christians, they respond, so long as they do not seek to use the state to impose their faith on others. Some liberals go further, saying that they are religious progressives who advocate a bigger welfare state as an outgrowth of their religious values. (A number of my fellow contributors to the new Brookings Institution book One Electorate Under God? take this approach, including Paul Begala.) I take all these liberals at their word. I do not think that most liberals who passionately dislike the Christian Right are hostile to Christians; they have some political and moral disagreements with conservative Christians. On most of the issues in question, I am inclined to agree with or at least lean toward the views of contemporary Christian conservatives, but there is plenty to debate.
But the phenomenon of liberal religion-bashing isn't imaginary, either. Robert Reich's latest column in The American Prospect is a case in point. It starts out pressing the case for the contemporary liberal understanding of church-state separation and its history in America, and uses this understanding to criticize the Bush administration. (The article is headlined "Bush's God.") He says that "the problem" with "religious zealots" is that "they confuse politics with private morality."
Now I disagree with much of what he has to say, and consider it uncivil to describe advocates of prayer in public schools, a ban on abortions, and other policies Reich dislikes as "religious zealots." (I don't consider myself a religious zealot, although I support several of those policies, and support some of them zealously.) But none of this is especially outrageous or even noteworthy.
But then comes Reich's conclusion:
The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face. This goes well beyond the common denunciation of "fundamentalism" where that term is meant to describe an ideology that seeks the imposition of religious views on non-believers. (That's what Andrew Sullivan means when he uses the term.) It is a denunciation — as a graver threat than terrorists — of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.
Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political "primacy of the individual," the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God — if, that is, we are to choose between individual human beings and God — then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. I certainly would. That would be the case for plenty of believers who are not sure what they think about abortion law, or want a higher minimum wage. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy.
I will not reciprocate the sentiment. Reich is not my enemy, although I certainly want most of what he stands for politically not to prevail. I don't think we have to have the battle he forecasts. I hope we don't. In fact, I pray we don't.
Excellent response re. early Christianity.
Of course, I could've just waited for Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings to report Reich's comments on the 5:00 news! /s
Could you imagine if Karen Hughes had said similar things about agnostics and atheists?
Reich would be intersted to know who his allies are. Consider this from Viktor Frankl (holocaust survivor):
"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a product of mere heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and enviornment -- or as the Nazi's liked to say, "of blood and soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidenek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
They'd be marching in the streets.
Honestly, Opus, it sounds to me like a declaration of war from the man.
You can only wonder who else he speaks for.
Capitalism sprang from Christianity, and not in any other culture.
Human rights sprang from Christianity, and not from any other culture.
And as for your statement "it certainly does not have a capitalist bent to it," I would, right off the top of my head, respond with the parable that Jesus taught about the morning workers and the workers hired later that afternoon--and the response he gave to those who argued that it was unfair they be paid the same amount. If that ain't CAPITALIST (hey, it's my money), then I don't know what is. It shows a great personal respect for individual right to dispose of property, of wealth.
So there! ;)
Reich has just said that the ultimate enemies are: those who believe in God. Spread this wide. To TV, radio, print, churches, etc. It is the MOST sinister comment EVER made for a former national level secretary.
His comment was so close to the truth, and yet so far at the same time. The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the religous and the secular, but between those who support freedom of religion and those who oppose it.
Islamic terrorism and militant secularism are BOTH enemies to freedom of religion. Reich fails to see that he seeks a similar end as the terrorists do, he just employs different methods.
Interestingly, Paul on Mars Hill didn't rail against the other gods and call for riots to clear them out. He simply called on the conscience of the hearers to go a different way based on their own decisions.
Freedom
No need to make that choice. The primacy of individuals (natural law) is our endowment from God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
It's no surprise to me that Reich would consider Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin to be his enemies. His only friend is the nanny state that empowers self-rightous overeducated, unlearned zealots like him.
Please add me to your ping list
Can you back that statement up with any facts?
Ping the appropriate poster. I was responding to that allegation myself, hence the quotes.
>>It's no surprise to me that Reich would consider Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin to be his enemies. His only friend is the nanny state that empowers self-rightous overeducated, unlearned zealots like him.<<
The best description of this "person" I've yet seen, particularly the "overeducated, unlearned" part.
Sorry.
I take Reich very seriously, because I think he has perfectly enunciated the views of the radical left. He would destroy what remains of Judeo-Christian America in public life if he could.
This is simply not the case. If you read the Old Testament in particular you will see in ancient Israel a capitalistic economy, with charity focused on the individual, with a strong belief in private property and the rule of law.
And nothing in the New Testament contradicts it. Those who say that it's the government's job to care for the poor (meaning, of course, that it's the taxpayer's job) aren't reading their Bible very carefully.
No biggie, Ditto!
Ugh. Apparently Reich is too stupid to realize all law is about someone's morality. I'd much rather have laws in the U.S. that reflect my ideas of morality than his. And I dare say he, if honest, would be quick to admit he'd rather have laws that reflect his ideas of morality rather than mine.
Frankly, I'm tired of people always wanting to blame religion for the violence of mankind. It's disingenous at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.